Template talk:Pp-extended

One consideration for prospective pages to be "protected" with this template[edit]

Pinging MusikAnimal, posting it here since I don't know for sure if there is a better place. Currently it is possible to transclude editnotices on pages containing certain categories by way of MediaWiki:Common.js code; for example, the Template:BLP editintro edit notice is automatically displayed on pages containing Category:Living people and Category:Possibly living people through a JS rule on Common.js. Maybe one could make pages containing this template automatically display an edit notice through JS. I am noting this here since some users did note that Abuse Filter does not pre-warn editors that edits to a page will not be allowed, so someone might make an edit to a page and expending effort only to lose all of that when they try to save.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Excellent idea! We could do that, having the JS look for the 30/500 category. There was discussion to require an edit notice on all 30/500 protected pages, but we might as well automate it! The only issue I see is that it won't be as informative. E.g. we'd rather give it info on why it's under that protection, and link to the ArbCom discussion, etc — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 6 April 2016[edit]

This edit request to Template:Pp-30-500 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Now that an actual protection level has been made, the wikilink should be changed from WP:AC/DS to Wikipedia:Protection policy#Arbitration 30/500 protection. I have sandboxed my proposed change here: Template:Pp-30-500/sandbox. Mz7 (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done but used WP:30/500 as the title of that section, or the location of where we document this in general, is probable to change; the redirect will be reliable moving forward I think — MusikAnimal ^talk

Template not displaying in categories[edit]

I can't help with this, as I don't know many things about templates, but it is not displaying in categories. See Category:Temple Mount for an example. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The template is currently built to only add the top icon and categories in articles, which was done by MusikAnimal here. That category and User:MusikAnimal/Test are the only non-article pages to currently use the template. In addition, WP:EFN used it unintentionally (which I just fixed). SiBr₄ (talk) 07:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've fixed it, and also added the template namespace. I don't think this would ever be used in other namespaces, maybe module — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invoke module[edit]

Is the Lua module not updated yet, or did no one change this template to have {{#invoke:Protection banner|main}}? Datbubblegumdoe^{[talk – contribs]} 23:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried it in the mainspace using the sandbox with the above code, and didn't get the correct behaviour. |small=yes didn't work, for one, and the full-length banner implied full protection and not 30/500. Pinging Jackmcbarn as I know he did some work for this — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Detect incorrect usage[edit]

This template should detect incorrect usage, just as the other prot icon templates do, in order to pick up edits like this one by SSTflyer (talk · contribs) - Jerusalem has been semi-protected since 05:19, 28 February 2011, and has never been 30/500 prot. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 10 July 2016[edit]

This edit request to Template:Pp-30-500 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would remove [[Category:Wikipedia pages under discretionary sanctions]] from the template. The protection level has now been applied to pages beyond arbitration discretionary sanctions, such as Disgusting and this ANI thread. Additionally, WP:ECP2016 looks like its about to authorize administrators to use it within their discretion just like semi- and full-protection.

Mz7 (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Also left a note at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Categorization_in_to_Category:Wikipedia_pages_under_discretionary_sanctions. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mz7 and Xaosflux: The change looked fine, but just an FYI, I've been working on Module:Protection banner and Module:Protection banner/config (see their sandbox changes), which I'm queueing depending on the results of the RfC, so that this particular template can become consistent with the other "pp" templates and simply {{#invoke:Protection banner|main}} like the others and not worry about categories, wording, etc. It's not ready to be synced yet. It's possible that we might need two pp templates, one more ArbCom specific, and one for "general-purpose" that we title "pp-ecp", but I'm planning to discuss this with Mr. Stradivarius before I proceed. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 04:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, sounds fine to me. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 October 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved due to no opposition — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– The 30-500 is a relic from before extended confirmed rights and protection was a thing, since the protection level now is usually referred to as extended confirmed protection a move is in order. Pp-extended was chosen for conciseness while Ds/extended-confirmed-editnotice was chosen to avoid ambiguity, which isn't required for the pp template as pp already gives context. This proposal was promted by a recent CfD changing the category name. --Trialpears (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Protection banner module needs to be updated to fix the "small" parameter which currently doesn't work after this move. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 8 January 2021[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add something that detects the page is a talk page, it's weird seeing EC-protected talk pages saying Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may submit an edit request to ask for uncontroversial changes supported by consensus when you can't make one. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 15:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done @LightningComplexFire: you may certainly continue to discuss a change here, but the edit request should only be activated when you have tested, ready to go edits in the sandbox (Template:Pp-extended/sandbox). — xaosflux ^Talk 15:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the page you requested edited (Template:Pp-extended) does not contain the text you asked to have changed. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the edit-request button should be working on protected talk pages (example link here) and send you to the protected requests request page. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]